Development of >=1 new carious lesion (caries incidence) · Children (high caries risk) with permanent molars requiring pit-and-fissure sealants
Caries incidence was 10% with laser-plus-acid versus 22% with acid-etching at 18 months, a non-significant difference (ungraded, single study).
1 finding from 1 review
Durmus 2017 (Er:YAG laser+acid vs acid-etching): caries incidence 10% (n=8) in the laser-plus-acid group vs 22% (n=18) in the acid-etching group at 18 months; difference not statistically significant (P > 0.05).
1 study · 51 participants
GRADE not reported
Dental anxiety (subjective and objective scores) · Children (ages 6-12) receiving pit-and-fissure sealants
Er:YAG laser preparation added to acid-etching did not increase children's dental anxiety versus acid-etching alone (P > 0.05; ungraded, single study).
1 finding from 1 review
Shindova 2018 (Er:YAG laser+acid vs acid-etching): no significant difference between initial and final subjective anxiety scores for the two groups; use of the Er:YAG laser did not provoke anxiety (P > 0.05).
1 study · 64 participants
GRADE not reported
Caries increment, surface index D(M)FS · Children or adolescents
The illustrative network meta-regression estimated an SMD for caries increment for fluoride in varnish versus fluoride in dentifrice across randomization year; the review did not state whether the difference was significant and certainty was not graded.
1 finding from 1 review
Caries increment, surface index D(M)FS · Children or adolescents
The illustrative network meta-regression estimated an SMD for caries increment for fluoride in gel versus fluoride in dentifrice across randomization year; the review did not state whether the difference was significant and certainty was not graded.
1 finding from 1 review
Caries increment, surface index D(M)FS · Children or adolescents
The illustrative network meta-regression estimated an SMD for caries increment for fluoride in rinse versus fluoride in dentifrice across randomization year; the review did not state whether the difference was significant and certainty was not graded.
1 finding from 1 review
Occlusion · Children receiving dental restorations (aged 4-11 years; primary teeth; Class I/II/V cavities)
Occlusion was assessed in a single trial and was not pooled or GRADE-rated (ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
Adequate marginal adaptation · Children receiving dental restorations (aged 4-11 years; primary teeth; Class I/II/V cavities)
No significant difference between IRR and CR in marginal adaptation (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Absence of marginal discoloration · Children receiving dental restorations (aged 4-11 years; primary teeth; Class I/II/V cavities)
No significant difference between IRR and CR in marginal discoloration (moderate certainty; downgraded for inconsistency).
1 finding from 1 review
Integrity of contact point · Children receiving dental restorations (aged 4-11 years; primary teeth; Class I/II/V cavities)
No significant difference between IRR and CR in integrity of contact point (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Early childhood caries (ECC), prevalence
1 finding from 1 review
Prevalence 64 [40, 89]
2 studies
GRADE not reported
Absence of secondary caries · Children receiving dental restorations (aged 4-11 years; primary teeth; Class I/II/V cavities)
Ion-releasing and composite restorations show no significant difference in absence of secondary caries in children (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Adequate marginal or tooth integrity · Children receiving dental restorations (aged 4-11 years; primary teeth; Class I/II/V cavities)
No significant difference between IRR and CR in marginal or tooth integrity (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Adequate color or translucency · Children receiving dental restorations (aged 4-11 years; primary teeth; Class I/II/V cavities)
No significant difference between IRR and CR in color or translucency (moderate certainty; downgraded for inconsistency).
1 finding from 1 review
Proper anatomic form · Children receiving dental restorations (aged 4-11 years; primary teeth; Class I/II/V cavities)
No significant difference between IRR and CR in anatomic form (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Absence of sensibility (post-operative sensitivity) · Children receiving dental restorations (aged 4-11 years; primary teeth; Class I/II/V cavities)
No significant difference between IRR and CR in post-operative sensitivity (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Early childhood caries (ECC), prevalence
1 finding from 1 review
Prevalence 55 [44, 67]
9 studies
GRADE not reported
Absence of wear · Children receiving dental restorations (aged 4-11 years; primary teeth; Class I/II/V cavities)
Wear was assessed in a single trial and was not pooled or GRADE-rated (ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
Retention [ · Children receiving dental restorations (aged 4-11 years; primary teeth; Class I/II/V cavities)
No significant difference between IRR and CR in restoration retention (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Early childhood caries (ECC), prevalence
1 finding from 1 review
Prevalence 57 [44, 70]
7 studies
GRADE not reported
Proper surface texture or luster · Children receiving dental restorations (aged 4-11 years; primary teeth; Class I/II/V cavities)
No significant difference between IRR and CR in surface texture or luster (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review